Sarah Doty v. City of Santa Clara

Filing 24

ORDER RE: JOINT DISCOVERY STATUS REPORT. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 6/22/2015. (lhklc4S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/22/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

SARAH DOTY,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

Case No. 14-CV-03739-LHK
ORDER RE: JOINT DISCOVERY
STATUS REPORT

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 23
CITY OF SANTA CLARA, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

Plaintiff Sarah Doty (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against the City of Santa Clara and

19

Defendant Officers Does 1 through 50 (“Defendant”) on August 18, 2014. ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”).

20

Plaintiff’s allegations stem from two incidents involving Santa Clara police officers, one on June

21

18, 2013, at City Hall, and another on December 31, 2013, after Plaintiff called the police in

22

response to hearing her neighbor engage in construction activities after-hours.

23

During a case management conference on June 10, 2015, Defendant indicated that Plaintiff

24

had failed to respond to Defendant’s discovery requests, which were served on April 3, 2015.

25

ECF No. 22. The Court issued an Order to Show Cause why this case should not be dismissed

26

with prejudice for failure to prosecute and ordered that Plaintiff must serve substantive responses

27

to Defendant’s interrogatories and produce documents responsive to Defendant’s requests for

28

1
Case No. 14-CV-03739-LHK
ORDER RE: JOINT DISCOVERY STATUS REPORT

1

production. Id. The Court further ordered that “[f]ailure to do so by June 17, 2015, will result in

2

an order dismissing this case with prejudice for failure to prosecute.” Id. The parties were

3

ordered to file, by June 18, 2015, a Joint Discovery Status Report. Id.

4

On June 18, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Discovery Status Report (“Report”). ECF No.

5

23. Because Plaintiff responded to Defendant’s outstanding interrogatories and requests for

6

production, the Court hereby VACATES its prior Order to Show Cause and will not at this time

7

dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff’s case for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff must comply with its

8

discovery obligations or face future dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute.
In the “Report,” Defendant contends that Plaintiff violated this Court’s Order by failing to

10

produce documents, such as her phone or medical records, in response to Defendant’s requests for

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

production. Id. Although the Court is disappointed that Plaintiff failed to produce these

12

documents, Plaintiff contends that after a diligent search Plaintiff was unable to locate responsive

13

documents. Id. The Court cannot Order Plaintiff to produce documents that the Plaintiff does not

14

possess. Plaintiff also stated that “Plaintiff has no problem providing any of the requested

15

documents once in her possession, control and or once they exist and they are in her possession or

16

control.” Accordingly, Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to take prompt and reasonable steps to

17

obtain the requested documents from her medical provider(s) and telephone company and to

18

provide these records to Defendant. Plaintiff will be precluded from relying on any evidence

19

responsive to Defendant’s discovery requests that Plaintiff does not timely produce during

20

discovery.

21
22

All future discovery disputes shall be presented to Magistrate Judge Lloyd.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24

Dated: June 22, 2015

25

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

26
27
28

2
Case No. 14-CV-03739-LHK
ORDER RE: JOINT DISCOVERY STATUS REPORT